Allowed

Banothu Veera v. The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Nov 2021WP/27555/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition challenging the illegal and arbitrary seizure of the petitioner's motorcycle by the Excise Department. The court directs the release of the vehicle subject to a fixed deposit and an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized motorcycle bearing No. TS 11 EL 7458 subject to the petitioner furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 10,000/- and an undertaking not to alienate or change physical features

Banothu Veera Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PE TITIO N NO: 27555 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Banothu Veera, S/o. Redya, Age. 32 years, Occ. Owner of the Vehicle bearinq no. TS 11 EL 7458, R/o. H.No.2-8, Sarvaram, Kudali lr/othe Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, of Prohibition and Excise Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Suryapet Prohibition and Excise Station, Suryapet District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent in not passing/d irecting the 3rd respondent to release the Pulsar 150 DTS-I BSIV Motor Cycle bearing No. TS 11 EL 7458, seized in COR No.108 ol 2021 , dated.0211012021 seized of petitioner's vehicle was being illegal, arbitrary and unjust also Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to order for release of the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶16

lA NO: 'l OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondent the 2nd respondent herein to issue orders directing the 3rd respondent to release Pulsar 150 DTS-I BSIV Motor Cycle bearing No. TS 11 EL 7458, seized in COR No.108 of 2021 , daled.02l1012021^pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE I{ONOI.IRABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSTIMAN}

¶21

\'llIT PETITION No.27555 of²⁰²¹

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of^respondent No.2 to release Pulsar 150 DTS-I BSIV Motor Cycle^bearing registration No.TS-11-EL-7458 seized in connection with COR.No.108 of 2021 dated 02.10.2021 for the offences under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of the T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and the leamed Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the Pulsar 150 DTS-I BSIV Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TS 11 EL 7458, which was purchased by availing financial assistance from private financier and eking out his livelihood. He further states that on 02.10.2021, the 3'd respondent seized his vehicle falsely and registered the above said crime on the pretext that 10 litres of I.D. liquor was found in the vehicle.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject vehicle is of the year 2017 make and it is a two wheeler. In proof of the same, he had filed copy ofthe registration certificate. By referring the same, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- could be the reasonable amount towards security deposit for releasing of the vehicle.

¶27

Considering the fact that the petitioner is using the subject vehicle for eking out his livelihood, the vehicle can be released subject to fufther ploceedings under the Act, on certain terms.

¶28

The wtit petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the respondents to release the Pulsar 150 DTS-I BSIV Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TS l1 EL 7458 subject to the condition of the petitioner fumishing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) in favour of the 2"r respondent. The petitioner shall also ilrnish an undertaking that he wilt not alienate or change tl.re physical features of the vehicle. The 2"d respondent shall write to the RTA authority not to transfer the said vehicle in favour of any third party without clearance from the Excise Department. Needless to say, release of the said vehicle is subject to the orders that could be passed by the 2nd respondent authority pursuant to the enquiry to be conducted under the provisions of the Excise Act.

¶29

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No

¶30

order as to costs.

¶31

Sd/. M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/

¶32

SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

Z. fie-Oepuiy Commissioner,^{of Prohibition and ExciseNalgonda, Nalgonda} District.

¶35

S. ihl'56tion House^{Officer, Suryapet Prohibition and ExciseStation, Suryapet} District.

¶36

+. One CC to Sri Laxmaiah^{Kanchani,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to GP for Prohibition^{and Excise, Highcourtfor the state of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶38

Two CD Copies 7. One Spare CoPY sm

"$.!

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112021

ORDER

WP.No.27555 oi 2021

1 HE SI4 16:
+
o
10 N0u202l
.J
*
-r'.r(-!

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE WI) WITHOUT COSTS

Banothu Veera v. The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banothu Veera v. The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chappidi Venkat Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Marthi Venkat Reddy Vs The Superintendent of Police and another

Laji Ke Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Tunuguntla Venkata Ravi Krishna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another

Dacha Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pesara Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others